DETAILED ACTION
The following Final Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 12/31/2025.
Status of the claims: Claims 1-3,5,6,8-12,14,20 and 22-23 are hereby examined below.
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner presumes claim 23 should read –A covering for an architectural structure, the covering including --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 20 depends from canceled claim 17. It is unclear what claim 20 should depend from
Claims are being examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3,5-6,8-12,14,22,23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson et al US 2006/0027340 in view of Schwaegerle US 5,358,024 and Colson et al US 5,797,442.
In regard to claim 1, with reference to Figures 23-24, Colson et al ‘340 discloses a cellular slat comprising an inner core (144) configured to be positioned within an outer cellular structure of an outer sock, the inner core (144) comprising first and second ends and first and second fold edges (152,150) formed between the first and second ends such that the inner core includes a plurality of wall segments. (shown below), the inner core forms an inner cellular structure having opposed first and second sides (top and bottom) extending between the first and second fold edges (152,150) of the inner core, the plurality of wall segments comprising a base wall segment (at the bottom) extending between the first and second fold edges (152,150) of the inner core, a first folded wall segment (at the top) extending between the first fold edge (152) of the inner core and first end of the inner core, and a second folded wall segment extending between the second fold edge (150) of the inner core and the second end of the inner core (shown below), the inner cellular structure (144) has a first curved profile defined by the base wall segment (shown below) that extends along the first side of the inner cellular structure and a second curved profile defined by the first folded wall segment extends along the second side of the inner cellular structure, an outer fabric structure laminated or wrapped around the inner core. (paragraph [0014])
PNG
media_image1.png
438
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Colson et al ‘340 fails to disclose an outer sock forming an outer cellular structure, the inner core is in an at least partially detached state relative to the outer sock along at least a portion of an interface defined between the inner core and the outer sock, wherein the inner core is formed from a film material, with the inner core (144, Colson et al ‘340) positioned within the outer sock (17, Schwaegerle ‘042), a spring force is generated at the first and second fold edges (152,150) that forces the first and second sides (top and bottom) of the inner cellular structure away from each other to form the first and second curved profiles, respectively.
With reference to Figure 22, Schwaegerle ‘042 discloses an outer sock (17) forming an outer cellular structure, wherein, with the inner core (16,42) positioned within the outer sock (38), the inner core forms an inner cellular structure having opposed first and second sides extending between the first and second edges of the inner core, the inner core (16,42) is in an at least partially detached state (in the form of a sleeve) relative to the outer sock along at least a portion of an interface defined between the inner core and the outer sock.
Colson ‘442 discloses wherein the inner core is formed from a film material. (column 7, lines 60-67)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the fabric which is laminated or wrapped on the inner core of Colson et al ‘340 to be formed as an outer sock which is at least partially detached as taught by Schwaegerle ‘042 in order to provide removable connection which would allow for easy repair or changes in appearance. As modified, with the inner core (144, Colson et al ‘340) positioned within the outer sock (17, Schwaegerle ‘042), a spring force is generated at the first and second fold edges (152,150 Colson et al ‘340) that forces the first and second sides (top and bottom) of the inner cellular structure away from each other to form the first and second curved profiles, respectively (The slat of Colson ‘340 returns to its original configuration if deformed. This return to its original condition is the result of a spring force (resiliency, paragraph [0013] generated at the edges by such a construction.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the device of Colson ‘340 to make the inner core from a film material as taught by Colson ‘442 as such would provide increased dimensional stability to a non-woven base material. (column 7, lines 61-67)
In regard to claim 2, Colson et al ‘340 as modified by Schwaegerle ‘042 disclose wherein the at least partially detached state of the inner core (144, Colson et al ‘340) allows for relative movement between the inner core (144, Colson et al ‘340) and the outer sock (17, Schwaegerle ‘042).
In regard to claim 3, Colson et al ‘340 as modified by Schwaegerle ‘042 discloses wherein the inner core is completely detached from the outer sock along the interface defined between the inner core and the outer sock. (Schwaegerle ‘042 discloses in column 6, lines 34-38 that sleeves (such as 17) do not need attachment means to be held in place).
In regard to claim 6, Colson et al ‘340 as modified by Schwaegerle ‘042 fails to explicitly state wherein: the inner cell structure extends in a widthwise direction between the first and second fold edges and in a heightwise direction between the first and second sides of the inner cell structure; the outer cell structure of the outer dock defines an inner cell width in the widthwise direction; and the base wall segment and the first folded wall segment of the inner core each define a segment length that is greater than the inner cell width of the outer cell structure.
However, at column 6, lines 44-51, Schwaegerle ‘042 states” The inner circumference of a web sleeve is preferably similar to the outer circumference of the slat insert generally taken as a smooth line drawn around the periphery of the slat insert and contacting the outer extremes at the lateral areas. It is desirable to create sufficient tension in a web sleeve in order to eliminate wrinkles or puckering at the seams thus presenting a smooth surface when assembled.” As such, Schwaegerle ‘042 discloses it is known to make the fit between the sleeve and slat to be as tight as possible, thus making the slat be slightly bigger than the sleeve would achieve this desired result.
In regard to claim 5, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
However, previously cited reference Colson et al US 5,797,442 discloses it is known to use heat stabilization for the purpose of preventing deferential shrinkage if a fabric is used for construction. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use such a method.
In regard to claim 8, Colson et al ‘340 disclose wherein the second curved profile is defined by the first folded wall segment (shown above) of the inner core, the second folded wall segment (shown above) of the inner core extends within an interior of the inner cell structure adjacent to an inner surface of the first folded wall segment.
In regard to claim 9, Colson et al ‘340 disclose wherein the first and second folded wall segments (shown above) at least partially overlap each other along the second side of the cellular structure.
In regard to claim 10, Colson et al ‘340 disclose wherein the first and second folded wall segments (shown above) are coupled together via a lap joint formed at a location of the overlap defined between the first and second folded wall segments.
In regard to claims 11-12, Colson et al ‘340 as modified by Schwaegerle ‘042 disclose wherein the outer sock (17, Schwaegerle ‘042) comprises at least one strip of material provided in a looped configuration.
Figure 22 of Schwaegerle ‘042 fails to disclose a looped configuration via at least one joint to form the outer cellular structure; the at least one joint comprises a sock joint; and the looped strip of material includes opposed ends coupled together at the sock joint to form the outer cellular structure.
However, Figure 9 of Schwaegerle ‘042 disclose a looped configuration via at least one joint (28) to form the outer cellular structure; the at least one joint comprises a sock joint; and the looped strip of material (26) includes opposed ends coupled together at the sock joint to form the outer cellular structure.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention, with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the looped strip to include a sock joint as taught by Schwaegerle ‘042 as such is shown to be a known means of forming the sleeve.
In regard to claim 14, Colson et al ‘340 as modified by Schwaegerle ‘042 disclose a first strip of material and the joint comprises a first sock joint (taught by Schwaegerle ‘042).
Colson et al ‘340 as modified by Schwaegerle ‘042 fails to disclose wherein the at least one strip of material comprises first and second strips of material and the at least one joint comprises first and second sock joints; and adjacent ends of the first and second strips of materials are coupled together at the first and second sock joints to form the outer cellular structure.
However, it would have been obvious to use two strips of material connected with two sock joints since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Multiple strips would allow for different materials to be used on each side.
In regard to claim 15, Colson et al ‘340 as modified by Schwaegerle ‘042 fails to disclose wherein the first sock joint is positioned adjacent to the first fold edge of the inner core and the second sock joint is positioned adjacent to the second fold edge of the inner core.
However, as stated above, Schwaegerle ‘042 does disclose that the joint (28) can be located such that it will not interrupt the smooth appearance of the louver. (column 7, lines 18-20). As such it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to located the joints adjacent the fold edges as such would not interrupt the smooth appearance of the louver.
In regard to claim 22, Colson et al ‘340 disclose wherein a shape of the inner cellular structure (144) formed by the inner core is substantially symmetrical about at least one centerline of the cellular slat.
In regard to claim 23, Colson et al ‘340 discloses an architectural covering including a plurality of cellular slats, wherein each cellular slat of the plurality of cellular slats being configured in accordance with the cellular slat of claim 1.
In regard to claim 20, Colson et al ‘340 fails to explicitly disclose:
Wherein the inner core is formed from a clear or blackout film material.
However, Colson et al ‘442 discloses that it is known to use blackout film material for the purpose of room darkening capabilities. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use such materials for the purpose of providing a room darkening device. (column 14, lines 20-2)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that Colson ‘340 as modified by Schwaegerle fails to teach or suggest a spring force generated at first and second fold edges, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant states at best, the memory shaped slat of Colson ‘340 returns to its original configuration if deformed. The Examiner would argue that this return to its original condition is the result of a spring force (resiliency, paragraph [0013] generated at the edges by such a construction. It is unclear how the memory shaping to create a resilient slat is different from the claimed spring force.
In response to applicant’s argument that it would not have been obvious to modify the device of Colson ‘340 to include an inner core formed from a film material as taught by Colson ‘442, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As Colson ‘340 teaches that the core can be formed from woven and non-woven materials (paragraph [0013]), Colson ‘442 teaches that using a film with a non-woven is advantage for dimensional stability. Applicant argues that this modification is unnecessary because Colson ‘340 already possess dimensional stability; however use of a film would further increase the dimensional stability of the device if a non-woven fiberglass base is used, as stated by Colson ‘442.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY C RAMSEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3133. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 7:00-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEREMY C RAMSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3634
/DANIEL P CAHN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3634